King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

The trailers for the new King Arthur were rather mediocre and few people were really looking forward to it, but I was all the more surprised by the positive reviews and reception. Guy Ritchie has a very distinctive style of directing and stands out very much above the rest, especially the editing is delivered very effectively and originally. Charlie Hunnam is likeable and fits the role like a glove, Jude Law is also an unusual and interesting role as the villain. There is not that much action, but when it comes to it it is quite good, especially the finale is decently paced. The soundtrack is also nice and the gritty visuals perfectly illustrate the atmosphere. Not a big hit, but an entertaining flick and definitely the best thing to come out of the fantasy genre in a while. 75% (17/06/2017)

The new King Arthur may have some charisma and flair, but he has absolutely no style or refinement. You'll want to talk about this story with your mates in some seedy "pub" on the outskirts of London, that's about as much character as this film gets. A muddle of rock hits, confusing editing, dull PG13 CGI action scenes and a boring 130 minutes. Ritchie may be his own man again, with a distinctive and very bold style, but this legend doesn't need to be made any other way. (12/05/2017)

A great fantasy blast that honors the Arthurian legend, but at the same time does absolutely whatever it wants with it. It adds monsters, it shows Arthur as a gangster from London (Londinia, in fact), thanks to Ritchie's direction and Pemberton's great music, it's extremely polished and stylish, and thanks to the actors it's likeable as hell... And above all, it is also quite funny, which the trailers unfortunately concealed, God knows why. Don't say you expected an ordinary film from Guy Ritchie. (15/05/2017)

This dark fantasy fairytale is told through the eyes of a talented directorial freak who became a loose cannon. It’s not easy to accept the rules of his game, but when you do, you’re in for a deliciously anarchic experience that is noisy, testosterone-packed and furious. It took me until the second half to get used to this, but I greatly enjoyed the climax. That’s why I am going to watch it again, ready for what’s to come and in the right “setting”. Pros: Charlie Hunnam is good, but Jude Law is the king of this move! Guy Ritchie fulfills his childhood dream in his own way, with both courage and rashness (take it or leave it). The soundtrack is brutally effective – the most action-packed scene, involving a chase through the city, is reminiscent (even in context of the story) of Zimmer's “Mombasa” from Inception. Paradoxically, I also liked all the slower, fluid, epically shot scenes. Cons: The movie is often unnecessarily fast in telling a story that is supposed to be a drama of Shakespearian proportions. This leaves no room to fully immerse oneself in it and the experience is similar to watching an attractive music video. There are too many shortcuts in some scenes that might otherwise have had a huge impact on the story. Weaker CGI, as the budget didn’t cover ILM in this already very risky production. (11/05/2017)

I emphatically recommend that this film not be seen by people suffering from ophidiophobia (because there are a lot of snakes in it, including an incredibly big one) or by video-game designer Dan Vávra (because he might not be able to handle such a politically correct version of medieval England with black and Chinese people and strong female characters). Other gamers, however, might be satisfied with the film, as the hyperkinetic (in other words, terribly chaotic) and almost entirely CGI action scenes, especially the last one, look like an in-game video cut out of an action movie. King Arthur is generally reminiscent of a number of pop-culture products: a music video for an English folk song, a kung-fu movie, a bad 1980s fantasy flick, a good fantasy flick from the aughts, a Monty Python sketch (“This is a table. You sit at it.”), and so on. Due to the many sources of inspiration, the unfocused narrative (even when that lack of focus is not justified by the narrating character’s poor memory), and the constant flitting between ridiculing Arthurian legends and their ultracool, self-absorbed and humourless modernisation for today’s nerds, the film is a terrible, eclectic mess. It doesn’t help much that Guy Ritchie attempted to give it some sort of order by approaching the film as another one of his London gangster flicks. Though the story is not set in the present, but in an alternate Middle Ages with wizards, giant rats and a sword that performs as a weapon of mass destruction, it is otherwise a tediously manneristic variation on something that’s been seen before. We have here a group of nobodies speaking cockney English who act first and think later, whose plan to outwit their opponents goes fatally wrong, a fidgety narrative with a timeline that’s all over the map, a psychopathic villain who does very nasty things to his victims (which, however, will please fans of Reservoir Dogs), and a chase scene filmed partly with GoPro cameras. Ritchie was able to use all of these things more effectively in his previous films, which also managed to get by with a pathos-ridden origin story based on the protagonist frequently having nightmares and fainting. Whereas Tarantino is maturing, Ritchie refuses to grow up, making the same movie again and again, and despite occasional flashes of refreshing creative invention, it mostly feels rather forced in this case. 50% (12/05/2017)